Saga The Dark Side - Define it

There's also the legal perspective - the person who "pushes the switch" would probably be found to have committed Justifiable Homicide. But the person who refuses to push the switch would, at most, get charged with "failure to carry out Duty To Rescue" and face a small fine.

By contrast, given that it's been established that necessity is not a defence against a charge of murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

I could see the person who "pushes the fat man" being charged with second-degree murder - and convicted.

More interesting question might be - does the Jedi Code demand murder, if it's For The Greater Good?

 

Iron_lord That case is somewhat famous in British Law for the fact that the original judge absolutely subverted the legal system in an attempt to obtain a guilty verdict. The jury, and the public as a whole, supported Dudley and Stephens.

On a related note, the legal system is pretty backwards when it comes to the Jedi; legal entitlement to Force sensitive children regardless of parental consent, and Jedi kill with such frequence and with such ambiguous necessity it's no surprise no one was too sad when they were gone, considering the kind of outcry and negative public opinion American police killings or alleged brutality cause. Even when the Republic's Medieval laws don't bend over backwards to accommodate the Jedi, they act pretty much above the law anyway whenever it suits them, up to and including outright treason and the attempted assassination of a democratically elected Chancellor (not to mention entirely bypassing democracy and assuming the Chancellorship following Pius Dea and during the Dark Age).

 

Well, that's the big conundrum of the Jedi, ain't it?

Here's the part from my Shatterpoint e-book that I was talking about:

Sure, it's a bit of an Apocalypse Now rip-off, but it gets the point across pretty well.

 

In a similar case, only American, the verdict was manslaughter rather than murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brown_(ship)

That rationale is pretty much what Jacen Solo started with - "sacrifice Jedi principles and take up the Sith Way, to save the galaxy from a Much Worse Alternate Future".

 

A good post, but it raises a question, for me. So we really see Anakin - in the movies - using the Force other than in anger? He was made a knight but...the Jedi must have been blind to his true nature. Their ignorance of his instability is puzzling to me. Whatever they know about what he did on Tatooine (which was probably next to nothing), they must be aware that something occurred. I can't imagine Anakin reacting anything other than emotionally under questioning, and surely they must have questioned him? How did he pass his trials?

And...okay, I het that Jedi numbers were depleted, that there is a war going on...I get all that but, did they make him a knight because of that, despite their concerns? And his scenes with Yoda in ROTS....Yoda didn't, afterwards, think "A minute, hang on. A Jedi Knight I must teach this to? Kidding me, are you?"

I never see him as a Jedi Knight...not truly. "My powers have doubled since the last time we met" - pride, the need to prove himself, not Jedi.

 

We see him using the Force in his podrace (even if it's not as overt as telekinesis) - and he's not angry there. Same applies to him floating fruit about (though it's a frivolous use of the Force and Anakin says in the book that Obi-Wan would be rather grumpy if he saw Anakin do it.)

In the EU, his "trials" are considered to be a lot of things, most of which occurred in the war. TCW gave him a Padawan shortly after his promotion to Knighthood.

The promotion itself takes place in the old Clone Wars series. We see the council discuss it, there's a lot of debate of Anakin's virtues and flaws - but eventually they make the decision, and the promotion ceremony occurs.

In the Clone Wars comics, it's stressed in one, that whatever they questioned him about, regarding Shmi's death, he didn't reveal the actual Tusken massacre- not till later.

The Clone Wars comic ("Enemy Lines") has "Tusken Jedi" Hett find out, when Anakin attacks him, ranting about what he'd done.

He reveals he's not a Tusken, but a human adopted into their tribe, who chooses to wear their mask.

As Hett puts it:

"Your mother's death, the slaughter that followed -- these are obviously something you did not tell your master. You could not have told any other Jedi -- otherwise you would have already faced disgrace. And now you have told me. If we are to survive, if we are to be of assistance to our fellow Jedi, we must work together. I don't think it is possible, so long as you see me as a Tusken instead of a Jedi. If that is so, then I must peel my skin and no longer be a Tusken. If I stand before you, naked in my own face, will you see me as I am? Will you understand?"

He also chooses not to tell what he's found out:

"Your secret is your burden to bear. Had I told Master Ki-Adi-Mundi, I would have relieved you of it. I will not do that. I carry my own burdens."

and warns Anakin of what it may do to him:

"Your secret will eat at you as a Gouka Dragon gnaws through a planet's crust. It will consume you unless you summon the courage to face the repercussions of what you have done. You must first accept that what you did was wrong. And you haven't done that yet. Tuskens are animals to you, aren't they? In your heart, you believe that they deserved to die. Perhaps they did. But did you have the right to kill them? Would you do it again?"

Anakin's answer, after Hett departs, is

"Yes."

 

Yes, I remember reading that book. A lot of EU doesn't, in many ways, reflect what I see on screen. And I would include TCW in that. I remember stumbling upon a clip of TCW, which was Yoda coming back from Dagobah...and the whole scene seemed to me...misplaced? Yoda, for instance, seems to elucidate that he has come to some new wisdom...but what he actually says is what, in essence, he says at the end of AOTC - there's no new insight at all. And Mace asks about whether he has learned anything that can help them win the war. And that is present here, also (in Shatterpoint). Whereas, in the movies - particularly ROTS the Jedi talk of ending the war, not winning it.

I think that is a hugely important distinction. That's the first point. The second point is (and addressing the question raised by this in Shatterpoint)..surely fighting for the Republic is not enough in itself. It is about fighting for what the Republic represents, and if you must become as the enemy (what the enemy represents) then you have already lost.

I get the impression from the movies that the Jedi were aware that there really wasn't that distinction. Mace's reaction to Palpatine assuring him that the war will continue while Grievious is around is as much directed against his perception of Palpatine's warmongering as it is against Grievious, it seems to me (and makes me wonder why the Jedi would have hatched a plan to rescue the Chancellor... at the risk to so many)

 

They are meant to be the same thing. The kind of ending they're talking about is intended to be winning.

 

That isn't the impression I got from Mace's response to Palpatine (which was in the same post...but you haven't quoted that part...). I wonder.....where did you get this information from (what is meant)?

 

There is much speculation whether or not Anakin actually took the Jedi Trials

 

I'm pretty sure only a Knight can be given a Padawan though. And a big plot point in ROTS is that Anakin is close to Master - which is partly why he's so upset when he gets a seat on the Council but not Mastery.

 

Looking back at the idea of defining the dark side I read recently that...

"in interviews George Lucas has explained that the Force is a symbol for all that is unseen in the universe. The light side is essentially a symbol for God — the unseen Power of good — while the dark side is a symbol for the forces of evil."

I really like this definition because it doesn't limit the different sides of the Force to being purely psychological. It is a broad definition which can include a being's actions as well as their intentions.

 

Still, as Palpatine points out, "good" is a point of view. He doesn't think in such simplistic terms as good and evil, right and wrong. No, he embraces "a larger view of the Force". To him, everything is fair game. He can be compassionate, but only if he feels that it will satisfy his greed.
And there we have another definition signed Lucas:

"The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion—of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides—the good force and the bad force. They're the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 1999

 

"Luke, your father and I were the finest bug-exterminators in the galaxy..."

 

About the dark side of the Force as a physical phenomenon: Since the Force is an energy field created by all living things and the dark side is said to be designed around greed and is generally associated with passion, it would be reasonable to conclude that the dark side of the Force is what we create whenever we're greedy and/or passionate.
When we're serene and compassionate, we generate light energy.
Both sides are natural and have their parts to play in our quest for survival and procreation, but for Force users, it's dangerous to tap into that passionate part of the Force, since when they do, all of that passionate energy flows through them and threatens to take control.

Thoughts?